Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@reminder-mcp Remind me to water the plants in 2 hours."
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
A MCP server for scheduling and triggering reminders via Slack or Telegram.
Reminders are delivered even if your server is not running.
This is possible because reminders are scheduled and triggered by an external service (cron-job.org), which will send the notification to Slack or Telegram at the scheduled time, regardless of your server's status.
{
"mcpServers": {
"reminder": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "reminder-mcp"],
"env": {
"CRON_JOB_API_KEY": "your_api_key",
"NOTIFICATION_PLATFORM": "slack",
"SLACK_WEBHOOK_URL": "https://hooks.slack.com/services/xxxxxxx",
"TELEGRAM_BOT_TOKEN": "",
"TELEGRAM_CHAT_ID": ""
}
}
}
}Related MCP server: TaskUp MCP Server
Name | Description |
| API key from cron-job.org |
|
|
| (Slack only) Webhook URL for your channel |
| (Telegram only) Bot token from @BotFather |
| (Telegram only) Chat ID for your group/user |
You can use natural language instructions with an LLM. Here are some examples:
Remind me to call Alice in 5 minutes.
Remind me to make a doctor appointment at 3:00 PM tomorrow.
List all my reminders.
Delete the reminder titled "Call Alice".
Note: Reminders are required to be set at least 2 minutes ahead of time.
Register at cron-job.org and generate an API key.
Go to Slack Apps.
Create or select an app.
Add the 'Incoming Webhooks' feature.
Activate and create a webhook URL for your channel.
Set SLACK_WEBHOOK_URL in the configuration env.
Create a bot with @BotFather.
Add your bot to your group or message it directly.
Get your chat ID via the Telegram API: https://api.telegram.org/bot<YOUR_BOT_TOKEN>/getUpdates.
Set TELEGRAM_BOT_TOKEN and TELEGRAM_CHAT_ID in the configuration env.
Create a reminder You MUST call this function before 'get-current-time' to obtain the current time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | The title of the reminder | |
| datetime | Yes | YYYY-MM-DDTHH:mm:ss formatted date and time for the reminder |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, return values, error conditions, or idempotency. The only behavioral hint is the prerequisite, which is likely incorrect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short with two sentences, which is concise. However, the second sentence is confusing and may mislead the agent, reducing effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what happens after creation, error handling, or the relationship with other tools beyond the questionable prerequisite.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already describes both parameters (title, datetime) adequately. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Create a reminder,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, the subsequent sentence about calling before 'get-current-time' is confusing and may mislead about the tool's purpose, reducing clarity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The only usage guidance is a dubious requirement to call this tool before 'get-current-time,' which contradicts typical usage. There is no context about when to use this tool over siblings like delete-reminder or get-reminders.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete reminders by title, processed, or all
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deletionType | Yes | Type of deletion: title, processed, or all | |
| title | No | The title of the reminder (required if deletionType is title) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the deletion types but does not disclose side effects, permanence, or any behavioral traits beyond the basic action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short and front-loaded. Every word is meaningful and earns its place, with no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is minimally adequate for a simple delete tool. It explains what it does but lacks behavioral details (e.g., confirmation, idempotency) that would aid the agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists the deletion types (title, processed, all) but adds little beyond what the schema enum already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'reminders', and specifies criteria (by title, processed, or all), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create-reminder and get-reminders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage scenarios (deletion by title, processed, or all) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose each option or when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the current local time
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. 'Current local time' is ambiguous regarding timezone (server vs user local). No further behavioral details (e.g., format, caching). Adequate but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single short sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description could mention return format or timezone. Currently lacks these details, but for a simple tool it is minimally sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
No parameters; schema coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, 0 params yields baseline 4. Description does not add param info, but none is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and the resource (current local time), with no ambiguity. It is distinct from sibling tools (reminders).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use or when not. However, the sibling tools are about reminders, so the usage context is implicitly distinct. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get all reminders
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get all reminders' without detailing scope (e.g., user-specific or system-wide), performance implications, or whether completed/deleted reminders are included. This lack of transparency could mislead the agent about the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise at two words, which is appropriate for a simple tool with no parameters. It front-loads the key information, and every word earns its place. However, it could benefit from a bit more context without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'all' means—whether it is all reminders for the current user, all across the system, or includes expired or deleted reminders. The agent may need additional context to use this tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no parameters (100% coverage), and the description does not need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds no value beyond the schema, which is acceptable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get all reminders' clearly states the verb (Get) and resource (reminders). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create-reminder and delete-reminder as a retrieval operation, and from get-current-time as dealing with reminders.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving all reminders, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The context suggests it's the only retrieval tool for reminders, so usage is implied but not clearly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.0.11create-reminderdelete-reminderget-current-timeget-remindersEach tool serves a distinct purpose: create, delete, get reminders, and get current time. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tool names follow a consistent verb-noun pattern in kebab-case (e.g., create-reminder, delete-reminder, get-reminders, get-current-time).
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. Each tool serves a necessary function without unnecessary bloat.
The server covers create, read (all reminders), and delete, but lacks update functionality and retrieval of a single reminder by ID, which are common operations.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Schedule tasks for later from your AI agent: reminders, delayed webhooks, recurring jobs.
Context-aware reminders that surface when your situation matches, not at a fixed time.
An AI-first personal CRM you run in natural language: contacts, reminders, notes, and more.
Cron-as-a-service MCP. Schedule prompts; when the cron fires we POST to your callback URL.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/arifszn/reminder-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server